House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Canada Post September 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Reform has just learned that the conciliator in the Canada Post labour dispute filed his report with the minister last Monday. When was this government planning to get around to telling the Canadian people that they are now on a 21-day countdown for a national postal strike?
Petitions September 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions on the same subject that vary a bit.
Each of them calls on the government to reject proposed changes to the Canada Health and Drug Act that would prevent people from taking dietary supplements or herbal goods of their own choice.
Transport April 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the minister completely ignored the question. I will try a different transportation mode.
In answer to an earlier question he stated that the infrastructure program was the answer to the highway repair system.
The total federal spending on the infrastucture program amounted to 40 per cent of one year's collection of federal excise revenues on fuel. The transport committee travelled from one end of the country to the other and heard from a majority of people that there had to be dedicated revenues of at least 20 per cent of that fuel tax revenue. The government ignored them.
Why does the government bother to consult with Canadians if it is going to ignore what it hears?
Transport April 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has falsely claimed that the $60 million Pearson settlement combined with the $185 million rent gift to the new Pearson airport authority will create 10,000 jobs. The truth is with legal costs added to those figures no jobs will be created without the spending of additional money. Where is that going to come from?
The Pearson contract that the Liberals breached prohibited the contract holder from introducing a passenger head tax at terminals 1 and 2. What is the Minister of Transport going to do to ensure that the new airport authority will not subject those using Pearson airport to a passenger head tax to pay for his costly error in handling the Pearson contract?
Canada Endangered Species Protection Act April 24th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words on the endangered species act. I am tempted to make references to those across the way, with the election coming and so on. I could get into it for ages and we would all have great fun with it.
This is a very serious bill. It is always difficult when there is a certain amount of emotion involved. We want to protect animals, wildlife and various endangered species in the country. We do not want to see anything being harmed or eradicated, not even members over there. We have to keep a few of them around. I cannot keep myself away from it.
There are problems with a bill like this one. The government may have intended to come out with something very meaningful and something very worthwhile in terms of protecting endangered species. However, either because it was ill conceived or because for some reason it was put out the way it was, we have problems with it. People in communities, business, different organization and sports groups have problems with the bill.
In a lot of other government legislation I have discovered through the committees I have sat on that there seems to be a very bad tendency. It is a style of government that caused me to get into government to hopefully see some change in it. There are committee meetings to study legislation at that level and to get input from people who say what they like or do not like and what they want included, yet the government is not prepared to listen.
I have participated in a couple of studies by committees when the input from the population, the voters, the taxpayers, has been overwhelming and the government for whatever reason chose to ignore it. I do not know why the government spends the money it does for consultation with the public if it is not prepared to listen. We heard a lot of concerns raised by industry, ranchers, farmers and people who go into the woods for recreation. Even they feel they may have problems.
We put forward a lot of amendments. We want to support the bill but we simply cannot do so in its present form. We get into a real conundrum when the government says it is doing this to protect endangered species and anybody voting against it does not want to protect them. That is not true.
In their heart of hearts members know that. It might be a little difficult for them to admit it on the eve of the election but they understand it. When we return to the House after the election in whatever make-up it is, maybe we can learn to work a little better together. I hope government, whichever government it is, will bring forward legislation and will listen to people. Hopefully it will listen to the points raised by the opposition and the public but it does not mean they will be automatically accepted. Sometimes of course there are at least two points of view in the public domain. These things have to be considered.
There were a lot of good amendments brought forward on this bill and they were rejected out of hand. That is very unfortunate. Had the government made these amendments to the bill, it would have found support. We could have moved the bill through the House quickly, even on the eve of the election.
I hope when we return after the election that those members opposite will have learned to co-operate, perhaps with the opposition or perhaps as the opposition. I shall look forward to that.
Via Rail April 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what I encourage the minister to do is privatize VIA Rail.
Given that VIA Rail is subsidized in the amount of $600,000 a day, $50,000 might not seem like much money to the Prime Minister, his finance minister or the Minister of Transport. However it represents a four-year degree for a Canadian student who cannot afford an education because the Liberals cut education funding by 40 per cent.
Can the Prime Minister or anyone else explain why Liberal patronage hacks get $50,000 for an eight-week Ivy League course while thousands of Canadian students cannot afford an education because of Liberal cuts.
Via Rail April 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the new reigning king of political patronage, keeps claiming that he appoints only good Liberals-and that an oxymoron if ever I heard one-to all of the patronage positions he fills.
If all the Liberal hacks in patronage positions are so good, why are the Canadian taxpayers shelling out $50,000 for VIA Rail's president to take an eight-week course at Harvard?
Petitions April 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, in my final petition the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that as of October 1996 the German delegation to the World Health Organization Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses has proposed legislation. We are well aware of the legislation, therefore I will not go through it. The petitioners state that these proposals if accepted will lead to drastic changes in legislation.
The petitioners request that Parliament strenuously lobby the international community to oppose the above mentioned proposals for the regulation of dietary supplements in accordance with our country's decision to vote against these proposals last October.
Petitions April 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the GST is the first federal tax in Canadian history to apply to the Bible and other reading material. The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise to remove federal sales tax from reading.
Petitions April 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have two more petitions on a similar subject from constituents.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canada's seniors have contributed a great deal to this country's political
development, economic growth and sustained prosperity within the 20th century. These citizens have protected Canada's tradition of democracy and individual freedom through two wars and through a variety of international peacekeeping endeavours.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament recognize these accomplishments and sacrifices by not seeking to reform Canada's national medicare or pension programs in any way that would reduce benefits for senior citizens living on limited or fixed incomes.